But since the fossils themselves and indeed the entire record does not provide any deductive information about which fossils if any are related and how they are related, this gain supposed gain in complexity is primarily presupposed but also consistent with what we observe in all designed systems.  Everything designed of lasting utility has progresses in complexity over time too.


Your problem is that you assume I ignore such things.  The reality is that I see the progression and I see the uncertanties and I see the alternatives.  You fit the evidence into your prior commitement to materialism.

Is this a joke? It is not presupposed that they have gained in complexity, it is objectively shown. It WAS presupposed that God made everything for thousands of years - back when people were ignorant.

And as for "lasting utility". BS. You are making another one of your famous RF assertions.  Many things that are designed often get less complex and more refined.  But, since you are basing your assertion on ID, I am going to assume that you are using the ID terms which basically mean that you can call something more complex whether it is more complex or less complex - its your crazy Creationism creeping in again.

The age of the geologic column of sedimentary rock (the only rock fossils are found) is presupposed, and age of the rock is further inferred by the fossils found in them complex fossils are presumed younger than simple fossils and so forth.  This is how fossil aging accrued.  It may well be correct, I do not say it is not, but it is circular and presupposed.  It is accepted because it fits the narrative and gives consistent results when new fossils are found so there is no justified reason to overturn it.  To say it is objectively shown is incorrect.



Perhaps I was precocious to say "everything" but I cannot think of anything of lasting utility that has gotten simpler in everyway (plan, construct, use, etc.)


No this makes no sense whatsoever.  I can't figure out what you are trying to say.  I know of no ID definition that has less complex things more complex and so on.

C'mon. The index fossils could be different colored popsicle sticks for all anyone knew when the first principles of superposition were being developed. It was the global relationships that mattered and the progression is well documented. It was a source of controversy among the original geologists as to whether fossils were the remains of organisms at all. The age depended on position, not complexity. Add the independent verification by radiometric dating of bracketted igneous and metamorphic intrusions and the timing becomes even more clear. It's as objective as anything gets.

What coherent explanation for this phenomenon can ID offer?

So, we agree the reason is the limit of your imagination that you make this argument? An Argument from Personal Incredulity?

This is the problem that ID'ists have, they haven't defined things enough to know what they are talking about.

Take Water purification.  It once took many chemicals and process to clean water of impurities, but then enter reverse-osmosis which only takes forcing water through a filter. But RF may argue that the filter is more complex, but the filter isn't. It is technologically advanced, but not complex - the holes are smaller than impurities - thats it.

Before, you'd have to boil and treat the water and still not get pure water.

RF, then might say that water purifying isn't biological (it can be), or that it isn't a sytem (it is), or is designed (it is, which addresses his point).

So, then he might say that the technology that led to its development is complex. True, but we are addressing his point that he knows of nothing that has become less complex through design.


There are many other examples of technology simplifying things.

Nope, filtering the size of things is much less complex than boiling (and all that goes into the chemical process of fire) in one chamber, allowing it to cool in another.

Oh, but you are talking about making the membrane. I'd argue that creating the conditions to have a fire (the chemical process are complex), to make a vessel that has properties that won't burn or break but hold the water, to know all the chemical properties of the impurities to make sure they reach the right temperature to evaporate, etc.

So, you see how complexity is a tough nut and one that ID is unable to distinguish.

After all, the distillation still has components that are IC, wheras the osmosis filter doesn't.  Sorry, RF again you are trying to fit a scenario into your preconcieved idea.

Clouds weren't designed. You have once again moved the goal posts.  WE are talking about things designed.